|
RTA opposes CMS payment cuts for rad therapy
July 17, 2012 -- The Radiation Therapy Alliance (RTA) has warned that double-digit reimbursement cuts for radiation therapy services proposed on July 6 by the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) may have a deep and devastating impact on cancer care services because community cancer centers may close.
To view the remainder of this article, and other exclusive content, you must first sign-in or register using the options below.
(Helptag:PaywallArticleLoginMessage)
| |
|
|
New AuntMinnie.com Members
|
Becoming a Member is FREE!
|

Real-time radiology-specific news
Case of the Day and Teaching Files
Focused topics digital communities
Lively, discussion groups
Medical imaging bookstore
SalaryScan
Job Boards
OnLine CMe/CE
Bookstore, market reports, more …
Conference Calendar
User-controlled eNewsletters
… registration is FREE and easy!
|
| |
|
If finalized, the proposed rule would mean a cut of 19% to freestanding radiation therapy centers and $300 million in reduced funding to treat cancer, according to the nonprofit organization, which represents 207 community-based cancer treatment centers in the U.S.
The proposed rule slashes funding by up to 40% for two reimbursement codes critical to the provision of radiation therapy, and proposes to pay for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment at freestanding treatment centers at rates of 40% less than hospital-based centers. The RTA said that because CMS' data blends hospital-based and freestanding treatment centers in the proposal, it belies the actual, much larger effect of the cuts on freestanding centers.
RTA further questioned the proposed cuts because in calculating reimbursement, CMS drew upon "patient fact sheets" rather than randomized, auditable survey data. The RTA stated that freestanding radiation therapy centers have been in discussions with CMS for two years, recommending that bundled payments for radiation therapy payments would be established.
RTA said that it will be providing formal comments to the proposed rule.
| |
|